The Lindsay Clancy Trial, a Forensic Scandal & How to Read the News | The Particulars Ep. 9

Headlines end. The details begin. In Episode 9 of The Particulars, Lacey and Nic walk this week's cases with a different lens — a private investigator and law student alongside a former federal agent. Tonight we launch a new four-segment format: Trial Watch, Legal Minute, Evidence of the Night, and Red Flag.

Trial Watch: the Lindsay Clancy trial, night two — jury seated, opening statements set for Monday. We break down Massachusetts' "lack of criminal responsibility" standard, why the burden flips to the Commonwealth once insanity is raised, the postpartum-psychosis diagnosis at the center of the defense, and the judge's ruling on what evidence the public will and won't see.

Legal Minute: Kentucky's new statewide license-plate-camera law (HB 58) — a 90-day retention cap and public location disclosure, and how it compares to a city policy that was already tighter.

Evidence of the Night: the forensic-lab scandal behind the JonBenét Ramsey headlines. Important: there is no evidence the analyst who pleaded guilty tampered with the Ramsey evidence itself — we walk through exactly what she was and wasn't connected to, and why a scandal like this matters for public trust in forensic labs generally.

Red Flag: how to read the news yourself — a case where two outlets report two different facts, and a case where the official source leaves a number out entirely. Plus quick updates on Nolan Wells, the Siders case, the Tate brothers, and Nancy Guthrie.

OUR OPINION. OUR ANALYSIS. NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Everything here is our commentary and opinion, based on the public record — not legal advice, and not an active investigation. Presumption of innocence applies, every time.

⚖️ New episodes Monday / Wednesday / Friday, 9 PM ET — live on TikTok, replay on YouTube.

Chapters 
00:00 Intro & New Format
00:57 Trial Watch: Lindsay Clancy, Night Two
03:08 The Burden Flip: Who Has to Prove What
10:00 Postpartum Psychosis & the Diagnosis
24:52 Case Updates: Wells, Siders, Tate & Guthrie
29:50 Legal Minute: Kentucky's New Camera Law
34:00 Evidence of the Night: The JonBenét Forensic Scandal
46:57 Red Flag: When the Outlets Disagree
57:54 Close & Sign-Off

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:00

Tonight, one trial, one legal question, and one study about how it got reported.

SPEAKER_03 0:05

This is the particulars.

SPEAKER_02 0:09

Welcome back. I'm Lacey. I run a licensed PI firm and I'm also a law student.

SPEAKER_01 0:14

I'm Nick. Everything tonight is our opinion and analysis based on the public record. We are not attorneys, and nothing here is legal advice. Everything has been verified as of 5:30 Eastern time today.

SPEAKER_02 0:28

Quick note before we um start, since we tease this on socials, tonight's the first night of a new format. So it's the same sourcing, same depth. We're just tightening the structure.

SPEAKER_01 0:39

Four segments every episode: the trial watch, a legal minute, evidence of the night, and a red flag. If a story needs more room, it gets more room inside that structure. We're not padding runtime just to hit a number.

SPEAKER_02 0:55

And one thing that isn't changing, this show has always been about walking the case with you, not just telling you what happened, but showing how you know what happened and how to read a docket, how to spot a citation, and how to notice when two outlets are telling you two different things.

SPEAKER_01 1:13

So comment, ask questions, push back on us if you want. That's the point. We're not just reporting the news, we're teaching you how to read it yourself.

SPEAKER_02 1:24

So we're gonna go ahead and get into it. Um, we're gonna start, we're gonna call um this moving forward. This will be the segment one, which is our anchor, and it's the trial watch. So we talked about that last uh live and how for the foreseeable future right now it'll be the Lindsay Clancy case. However, comma, when that ends, a new trial will take its place. So, uh quick reminder for anyone just joining, and a callback for anyone who caught episode eight, where we first walk through this. Lindsay Clancy is on trial for the deaths of her three children. She's never disputed that she caused their deaths. The entire fight is over her mental state under Massachusetts, quote, lack of criminal responsibility, end quote, standard. The formal name for what people usually call an insanity defense. It asks whether, because of a mental disease or defect, she lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate that what she was doing was wrong or to conform her conduct to the requirements of law in plainer terms, to control her actions even if she understood them.

SPEAKER_01 2:29

Yeah, jury selection concluded yesterday. 18 jurors were impaneled, formally seated for service, twelve who deliberate and have six altern six alternates. They haven't been sworn in yet. Opening statements are set for Monday morning at 9. And multiple outlets are now reporting the trial itself is expected to run six or eight weeks.

SPEAKER_02 2:53

Yeah, and we're gonna come back to that as our final segment for the night on how we do our reporting and things like that. But um, worth knowing going in, um once lack of criminal responsibility is sufficiently raised, the Commonwealth has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible, that she had both the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and the substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of law. The defense doesn't have to prove she lacked that.

SPEAKER_01 3:24

A few motions moved since Wednesday. The Commonwealth's motion to exclude block from being introduced at trial, undisclosed defense expert witnesses was allowed Monday through the defense, though the defense can revisit it during trial. Still open, a motion on jury instructions and a defense motion in line. What is that? Lamine?

SPEAKER_02 3:48

Lemony. I literally, I literally put how to say it.

SPEAKER_01 3:52

Oh, pronounced in limini, Latin for at the threshold.

SPEAKER_02 3:56

I did that for you. You like that?

SPEAKER_01 3:59

Yeah, I did. A request asking the judge to decide whether certain evidence can come in before the trial even starts, asking to limit the number of first responder witnesses.

SPEAKER_02 4:11

Yeah, the other major development, Patrick Clancy, the children's father, filed a request last week asking the court to restrict public access to five categories of evidence: the 911 call, pre-incident pre-incident photos, crime scene photos, autopsy photos, and the children's clothing.

SPEAKER_01 4:28

The judge ruled today, confirmed the 911 recording and the autopsy photographs are impounded, sealed from public release. The order doesn't stop the jury, attorneys, or courtroom spectators from seeing or hearing the evidence during trial. Media can report on the contents, but cannot record, display, or reproduce the materials themselves. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 4:57

Do you think this is gonna be a six-to-eight week trial? Or do you think it's gonna be shorter, longer?

SPEAKER_01 5:02

Well, there's so there's a um there's a couple facets to this trial that make it a little bit different. One being that there's a whole separate system that's being used to determine whether she was in the right state of mind.

SPEAKER_02 5:27

Yeah, yeah, I agree with that.

SPEAKER_01 5:29

Um because that's part that is the the defense. That is ultimately the the defense, right? Um so it's not just a typical murder trial.

SPEAKER_02 5:41

Right.

SPEAKER_01 5:41

Uh, because that will make a determination whether or not they can actually charge murder one. Ultimately. And and if I know something and I know that it's it's a it's a game that defenses play, and they're trying to get the best defense for her. That's their job.

SPEAKER_02 6:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 6:04

However, I don't think that there is gonna be a ruling on whether she had the rights the state of mind to be able to commit premeditated murder in this situation because of the circumstances. So, therefore, things are gonna get pushed out, things are gonna, they're gonna ask for motions of and time enlargements for a lot of different things simply because the defense wants a ruling on whether or not she was the first biggest the first biggest thing when it comes to this specific case is it's not necessarily the state, it is what what is referred to as the commonwealth.

SPEAKER_02 6:50

Right. So it operates a little bit different, anyways. Um but what we had talked about in, and I don't remember, I guess it was episode eight, because that was our first trial watch night. Um that was night one. So we talked about it's an either-or test from the defendant's perspective, both um, but uh both capacities burden for the commonwealth. Commonwealth must prove that she had both the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and the capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of law. So if the jury has reasonable doubt about either one, the commonwealth hasn't proven criminal responsibility. So that's where I think it it's kind of gonna be a little bit different. How it's almost like it's a two-track trial, so to speak.

SPEAKER_01 7:40

Yeah, and and it's a it's another it's a it is a two-track trial. You're you're not wrong there at all. It it what what I get from this though is it's another way of pleaing insanity.

SPEAKER_02 7:56

Well, it is their version, yes.

SPEAKER_01 7:58

But it makes it sound like it's not your tr not like you're trying to plea insanity because insanity pleas are almost never won. They're almost never almost never given.

SPEAKER_02 8:10

Very hard to to prove that, actually.

SPEAKER_01 8:11

So so they're trying to make it sound different when ultimately that's the that's what it is. You're proving that you didn't have the m mind capability to go ahead and throw that word out there because I just love having that. No, I'm not gonna say I didn't say it. You did. You you shunned me for saying it last time.

SPEAKER_02 8:31

That's just that word, uh, okay.

SPEAKER_01 8:33

Well, anyways, this is just a little discussion. We wanted to hopefully get a little bit of your input in the chat, um, whether or not you think this will last six to eight weeks. Um, my personal opinion, not even close. This is gonna be months. Okay. This is this is gonna be probably six to eight months, not weeks.

SPEAKER_02 8:54

So I I did a little bit of digging today, okay, and I did bring a couple, I came prepared, all right. So I did a couple of things that I really wanted to kind of put out there to elicit the discussion, basically. So you don't just get to sit there and listen, you have to participate, okay? So unusual Massachusetts rule. So the judge isn't required to define mental disease or defect for the jury at all. Courts have held that spelling it out risks confusing or misleading jurors more than it helps. And that's actually from the Commonwealth versus I'm gonna say Schleich Broader.

SPEAKER_01 9:41

Yeah, it's it's from case law and the commonwealth.

SPEAKER_02 9:43

And then also Commonwealth versus Fuller. So that was a case from 2010 and a case from 1995.

SPEAKER_03 9:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 9:50

Um, and then the defense's actual diagnosis for her, and I'm gonna say Zangari's review of the civil complaint, excuse me, bipolar disorder one, severe with psychosis and anxious distress, par postpartum onset with the violence precipitated by manic psychosis, including compelling common or command hallucinations. So you're gonna hear us talk about this. This is actually, I found this very interesting. So, because we had kind of discussed this a little bit in episode eight.

SPEAKER_01 10:24

Lacey found that postpartum psychosis affects one in two, one or two in one thousand.

SPEAKER_02 10:32

Say exactly how it's written.

SPEAKER_01 10:33

Yeah, one or two in one thousand.

SPEAKER_02 10:37

A thousand is actually how it is quoted, sir.

SPEAKER_01 10:40

Okay, it's quoted one or two in a thousand.

SPEAKER_02 10:44

Per the source's exact wording, and untreated cases carry about a four percent infant.

SPEAKER_01 10:54

Nope.

SPEAKER_02 10:55

In I didn't put the source.

SPEAKER_01 10:58

Infanticide.

SPEAKER_02 10:58

There you go. Source is Alexandria Alford, and it's actually a whole bunch of other people, but it's a systematic review of postpartum psychosis resulting in you're lost.

SPEAKER_01 11:17

Infanticide.

SPEAKER_02 11:18

There you go. Women's mental health. That was published in 2025.

SPEAKER_01 11:25

It's just a it's a made-up word they used for clinical postpartum psychosis. That's all it is.

SPEAKER_02 11:30

That is not what that is.

SPEAKER_01 11:32

Infanticide rate.

SPEAKER_02 11:35

Do you not know what it's like? Oh, killing your infant.

SPEAKER_01 11:37

Oh, yeah. Okay. That's terrible. That's a horrible word.

SPEAKER_02 11:41

You you acted like you didn't know what it meant.

SPEAKER_01 11:44

I well, no, it's a horrible word.

SPEAKER_02 11:46

Okay. Well, anyways, I digress. So basically, I'm gonna play with this all night because it doesn't move.

SPEAKER_01 11:52

How about you just don't touch it?

SPEAKER_02 11:53

It falls.

SPEAKER_01 11:54

It's not moving.

SPEAKER_02 11:56

I'm gonna. Okay.

SPEAKER_01 12:01

Oh gosh. So how per how prosecutors build a predetermination or premeditation uh case specifically to rebut a mental state defense? Um, they tie in the 168 prosecution witnesses reported at the May status conference. So they just bring in tons and tons and tons of witnesses. That's how they reviewed it.

SPEAKER_02 12:28

I don't so I went back and forth again. This is, I think, so we do a rough, a rough run script. So all of the source citations and things like that, the direct quotes, all of that, I put in a document that we follow along with throughout our live shows. This is version, I think, nine.

SPEAKER_01 12:51

We were making versions of this like 10 minutes ago.

SPEAKER_02 12:54

So I was still fact-checking and cross-verifying. For example, when we went in here and I put the quote in here about pars, I cannot say postpartum. Postpartum. When I put that postpartum psychosis effects, I literally went back and forth and back and forth on how I was going to actually put it in there. And I was like, okay, details matter. So we made it the direct quote from the study, which the study, if anyone is interested in it, it I actually have the PDF version of that. And I can, if you reach out to me, I can get you a copy of it because it is a very, very interesting read. And I wanted to, because I was kind of, I don't want to say I was making claims, but I was discussing it in episode eight, and I thought, you know what? I really need to back this up. There's got to be some kind of documentation, and that's when I actually was able to find this one. So very, very interesting. And looking at that from like a forensic psychology lens, okay, um there's a couple of things. So substantial capacity and appreciate wrongfulness. So that's clinically versus legally. So that's the difference when we start talking about things. There are in this case, you will see, I think, a lot of specific terms used where it's gonna be interesting to see how they do it. Is you I honestly it's it's just gonna be a lot of medical. So that's gonna be interesting to see how that plays out. Um, but the legal source is the same. We talked about it last time, McAl and that, you know, language above, the clinical framing reads as a forensic psychology trained PI. So when I'm reading things, I'm looking at it from both angles. I don't know. I just I feel like it's it's the clinical side, I think we've already seen it. I know that most people are going to TikTok and YouTube and even Facebook, and a lot of this that we're seeing right now, there's actually there was a TikTok that I saw where it's just a lady reading off because the a lot of the information that's coming out right now is from the civil cases, and so people are picking it up and they're literally reading it like line for line, like her diagnoses and things like that. And so I think it's going to start paving a path that this case is going to like I said, six to eight months. Months?

SPEAKER_01 15:47

Yeah. Trial's gonna be six to eight months.

SPEAKER_02 15:50

I don't think it's gonna be that long.

SPEAKER_01 15:52

I will say there was uh, you know, we're you're trying to prove and you're trying to get a jury to believe that a woman had the right state of mind to kill her children.

SPEAKER_02 16:03

Prosecution, or in this case, we will refer to it as the Commonwealth, they are trying to pull into the trial um a bunch of witnesses. And roughly it looks like there's like 168 people on their list, um, which is the first responder. Can I talk tonight? First responders, investigators, forensic experts, 168 people, roughly. I cannot give you a direct quote because I do not have that documentation right in front of me. Um, but the fence also includes an additional like 50. So when Nick's saying like six to month, six to eight months, I think that's a stretch. However, I do find six to eight weeks seems short on on when we're looking at the amount of witnesses that they're potentially going to bring. And the reason I say that, Jess, is they talked about that, the defense talked about that when they were discussing these motions. Um, because Patrick Clancy, the dad, has been specific about some things. And so the Commonwealth is presenting other things, and they're saying, hey, it was, you know, three individuals, plus they had the, you know, the defendant herself. And then, you know, Patrick was technically involved. So there's all these different people that like first responders were attending to all of those different people. That's a lot of people that were there and they are wanting to put all of those witness statements, like testimonies at trial. So that's kind of where that's coming from. Right. Nobody was there. These were all like, you know, because actually he got back to the house, and that's when he like calls 911, and then all these first responders show up and they start calling other people. And so it's a very chaotic scene, and they are trying to, you know, take care of all of the different people. So it there was a lot of people at the scene, and I know that they want to kind of call all of those witnesses in. So that's what's kind of up for debate right now. And I want to say it was like, if I remember correctly, and it's gonna be a ton of character witnesses, too. Yeah, it was like, I think because I think the defense was arguing that they didn't need, and I don't want to say this, but I think it's 15. They were saying there was like 15 first responders, and the defense was basically kind of saying, hey, we don't necessarily need this because they're all gonna kind of have the same story, but then the Commonwealth was saying no, then the judge actually which I was just posed a good question.

SPEAKER_01 18:43

Um, how would all the witnesses help the case? Uh, most likely, even though you're dealing with postpartum depression and you're going and seeing all of these specialists because you have these issues, uh, what do you show your friends? What do you show the people that see you in public? What what face do you show? Do you show that face in public? No, you don't. It's in private. So what what's your So that's what the character witnesses are gonna be? They're gonna show that, oh no, she she came to the store and she was talking fine, she was normal. That's that's what the character witness witnesses are gonna be.

SPEAKER_02 19:17

So, yes, you do have your character witnesses. You will probably have, which again, expert witnesses, then you have your witnesses. So, like we discussed on uh episode eight, where it's gonna be anybody who talked to her. Yeah, but what I'm saying, they're not contesting that. They're contesting right now that they don't want the defense, does not want all the first responders testifying.

SPEAKER_01 19:36

And the whole point that they were kind of arguing with is that it's too sensitive and it's too prejudicial to the jury hearing about it all the time.

SPEAKER_02 19:45

If you have, you know, in theory, 15 people that get up on the stand and they're recounting their version of what happened over and over and over again. Now the judge was basically saying, how can he rule that they all because you basically it's an offer of proof.

SPEAKER_01 20:02

Is so with with this, all you really need to do is have one or two of the investigators go up there as witnesses.

SPEAKER_02 20:10

But what and then can I finish my Satan? I'm just saying it's what I'm trying to get across. The Commonwealth is basically saying the way they have to do is they have to prove that she was the one that did this to each individual child. And so it's kind of the same thing, a burden of proof type deal. Is it, you know, it's kind of the same concept. Well, this person committed this act against this person.

SPEAKER_01 20:34

But she's not contesting that she killed them.

SPEAKER_02 20:37

I what I'm saying is that was her the Commonwealth, when they got up and they debated their self, they were like, we have to, we have all of these people that these people, the witnesses interacted with, they all have a different story. And the judge is saying, I can't rule on this because I haven't heard what these people are gonna say. However, if we get one or two or three witnesses in and they all have the same offer of proof, then we don't need to continue down this line. And he he was basically saying at that point, hey, we don't have to continue to just put person after person after person up that's saying the same exact thing. But considering he doesn't know right now what they're going to say, he can't rule that only one or two or three or four witnesses is needed out of the 15.

SPEAKER_01 21:25

This is, I mean, to me, I I'm gonna this is my opinion. This is just the type of person I am, and that's fine. I this doesn't need to be a trial.

SPEAKER_02 21:38

I know we have difference of opinion.

SPEAKER_01 21:41

Hey, I understand that postpartum depression is very real. I understand that people, you know, they go through periods in their lives that are very, very difficult, but you strangled your kids and then you tried to kill yourself. You know, you wanted to die, so put Her to death. That's it. This doesn't need to be a drawn-out trial to spend taxpayer dollars. Sorry. She evidently didn't get the help. It's not a problem of, okay, she killed her kids and tried to kill herself. It's a problem of she wasn't helped.

SPEAKER_02 22:20

I agree with that, yes. But what I'm gonna stop you on, and I'm gonna say, if point blank, at this point, how do you know that she is the one that killed her children?

SPEAKER_01 22:33

She hasn't contested it.

SPEAKER_02 22:35

And what you mean, and you don't have to say I'm guilty, you don't have to say I'm innocent. She hasn't contested it. It doesn't matter if she contested it or not. They have to prove she did it. Sir.

SPEAKER_00 22:56

Oh, that is the way that's that's fine.

SPEAKER_02 23:00

So, yes, there does need to be a trial, because in my eyes, they have to prove that she did it.

SPEAKER_01 23:05

But she's in all honesty. She's pleading not guilty because she's she didn't have the mind to be able to commit those crimes. I I if if you if you plead not guilty.

SPEAKER_02 23:19

Because if we believe like I say, if we believe what we are what so far has come out, when the husband returns home, he doesn't notice anyone. No one is anywhere that he in his immediate areas where he would go, like living room, kitchen, bedrooms, whatever.

SPEAKER_01 23:37

The mom has slit wrist and she's out the second floor balcony window or whatever. She's on the ground outside. Yes.

SPEAKER_02 23:42

And then he finds his children in the basement.

SPEAKER_01 23:45

Right. So Yeah, I understand. There is no it could be him just telling a story, and he's actually the one that did all of it.

SPEAKER_02 23:53

It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

SPEAKER_01 23:56

I understand, but that's not the case.

SPEAKER_02 23:58

You don't know.

SPEAKER_01 23:59

That's my opinion. Everything we've got now lives in one place. Our link tree. Link is in our bio. Schedule. Coffee. Kofi. I don't know. Uh, the merch store, every social, one link, easiest way to find us, our link tree. Speaking of the store, we've now got both stickers live, plus our first t-shirt. The Clear as Mud Dictionary Tea. We got our first orders this week. Genuinely thank you. Thank you to whoever grabbed one. We appreciate it. Uh, it's going to support everything that we do here on Casewalker and um and the particulars.

SPEAKER_02 24:47

You gotta order them so you can sport them around.

SPEAKER_01 24:49

Round of updates on cases we're tracking. First, Nolan Wells. Some of you will remember we first introduced attorney Ben Crump's involvement back in episode six when he was arranging a joint arranging arranging a joint inspection of Wells' phone with the family. Now, Crump has announced results of an independent autopsy performed by Dr. Roger Mitchell. Cause and manner of death are listed as undetermined pending investigation. The exam found a discoloration on the back of the head, roughly 12 by 8 inches, but no skull fracture and no lacerations. And the report notes that decomposition hasn't been ruled out as the cause of that discoloration. Portions of the throat weren't available for examination, so a neck injury also hasn't been ruled out either. No toxicology results were included in that report.

SPEAKER_02 25:52

In the Siders family case out of Vinton County, Ohio, we walked the full docket on this one back on episode five, including the Bill of Particulars filing, which is the defense formally asking the state to spell out the specific facts behind the charge. Tonight's update, still no grand jury indictment. Several things worth adding to what we told you on episode five. Gary Sider Sr.'s bond has already been modified to recognise only due to a serious medical condition. He is on a GPS monitor. The court has also ordered an evaluation to determine both his competency to stand trial and whether he's not guilty by reason of insanity. The same standard we've been talking about all night with Lindsay Clancy. Uh Christina Siders filed a motion for a dissemination order back on the 16th. And the docket shows an order was actually entered on this past Thursday, the 23rd. We don't have the content of that order yet, just that one exists. Elizabeth Siders' motion to modify her own bond filed back on the 8th still shows no ruling. And brand new, as of today, Gary Siders Jr. filed a motion for leave to file documents under seal. We don't know yet what those documents are. I was literally doing a bunch of uh docket pulls at about 8:30 tonight. I am still in the process of going through all document pulls that I did at 8:30. So they will be any any specifics that I feel are pertinent. I will include those on our Monday night episode.

SPEAKER_01 27:26

On the Tate brothers, if you missed who they even are, we give a full background on episode seven. Tonight's just an update. They remain in federal detention in Miami. Their next hearing is Monday, this coming Monday, July 27th, the same day Lindsay Clancy's opening statements begin. British authorities now allege a combined 59 counts against the Tate brothers across the UK and Romania. Marley Kinney and Cameron Conley. We pulled this docket ourselves in episode 8 and reported his arraignment date live. That arraignment happened as scheduled, and the case is moving forward. It wasn't dismissed. The next event on the docket is a pre-trial conference September 30th.

SPEAKER_02 28:17

And on that note, please keep in mind that those two cases are separate. So Marley Kinney's case is separate from Cameron Conley.

SPEAKER_01 28:30

Cameron Conley was charged with voting under the This was the girl that disappeared at the lake and they had.

SPEAKER_02 28:37

Yeah, voting under the influence, or I don't remember exactly.

SPEAKER_01 28:41

Grayson Lake in Kentucky? Yeah. Yes.

SPEAKER_02 28:43

But they so it's not the same case. They're and they're not even really connected. It's just that she was on the boat that he got charged with voting under the influence. When I say that his case is moving forward, that is just his voting under the influence case. Right.

SPEAKER_01 29:01

It is not her death in any relation to her.

SPEAKER_02 29:04

That is a separate case. And there, to my knowledge, from what I've been able to find or have not been able to find, there is no more public movement on her case.

SPEAKER_01 29:15

With hers, it's a it's a death investigation still.

SPEAKER_02 29:17

Um my update on cases that are still continuing, Nancy Guthrie. We covered her case back on our very first episode and gave an update on episode six. No movement on the disappearance itself. Tonight, Derek Kalia, maybe that's how you say that. I don't know. The man who sent the fake ransom note is still set for sentencing September 10th in front of Judge Heindraker after his guilty plea. Nothing new to report here, but mentioning it for transparency.

SPEAKER_00 29:51

So we are moving on to segment two.

SPEAKER_02 29:57

The legal minute. So Kentucky's new statewide camera law. Kentucky Governor Andy Bashir signed House Bill 58 into law this year. 2026 Kentucky Acts Chapter 71.

SPEAKER_01 30:15

The law sets a general 90-day retention ceiling on automated automated license plate readers, ALPR data. With some exceptions for active investigations and requires public agencies using stationary readers to maintain location lists that are available through Kentucky's Open Records Act. It had 23 sponsors led by Representative John Hodgson. Now, Newport is in Kentucky. Okay, um, but theirs their town, their city, is already tighter with a 30-day retention than the new state floor, confirmed directly. Newport police department captain Drohan told L I N K, Northern Kentucky, and WCPO, the city's contract sets a 30-day retention inside the state's 90-day cap under House Bill 58. What does that tell viewers about how local versus state privacy rules actually stack?

SPEAKER_02 31:29

And I think I need to put in a caveat there because in theory, if we're thinking about this, if we're thinking about any random place, okay, and this is the flock cameras, and and basically what it's just this evolving, we've talked about it every episode, but with this in particular, I thought it was interesting because if we think about placement of these cameras. So if we're talking about like a rural, like really small town, may or may not have flock cameras. Okay, the amount of because if we are just capturing the license plate or the rear of the vehicle as it passes by, the amount of data stored on so to speak, servers for that specific camera, yeah, is probably a lot less than say if we're talking about uh one in Washington, DC.

SPEAKER_03 32:28

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 32:30

So are we, I mean, with what we're we're seeing, is a blanket, so say, like for Kentucky, they just give it a 90 day.

SPEAKER_00 32:39

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 32:42

As someone who now, like I said, I spent last week, I think it was, I was almost out of storage space on my desktop. So I had to go through and delete a whole bunch because I was like, I don't want to buy an external hard drive, and I don't really want to make the jump just yet.

SPEAKER_01 33:01

Buy t-shirts so we can get an external hard drive for her.

SPEAKER_02 33:06

Well, I was just I was looking through some of the stuff and I was like, I really don't know if I want to make that purchase right now because I think there's stuff I could delete, and of course there was. I started deleting and then I just got in this like spree of deleting stuff. So there may or may not be things missing from my computer that I need. I'm just saying, if we're just allowing these companies to have this data indefinitely, does that potentially pose a risk that, you know, if it's on there forever, it increases the likelihood that it could be and that's what's that's what gets argued at the court and all of that kind of stuff. So there's a lot that goes into that. Our next segment, which is exciting, is our new segment, Evidence of the Night. Jean-Benet Ramsay stories converged this month, and only one of them is about the case everyone thinks it's about.

SPEAKER_01 34:14

Moving over from Paramount Plus with a winter of 2026 release. They're looking for this winter.

SPEAKER_02 34:23

We talked about that in a firm former episode, and I'm not gonna quote which episode because I can't remember. I've slept since then.

SPEAKER_00 34:31

Second.

SPEAKER_02 34:32

And this is the real story. Former Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensic analyst Yvonne Missy Woods, who was on the original 1996 Ramsey Forensic team, pleaded guilty on June 23rd to four felonies cybercrime, perjury, which is lying under oath, and influencing a public servant and forgery.

SPEAKER_01 34:57

Her misconduct prompted a review that identified more than a thousand potential impacted cases spanning from 2008 to 2023. Sentencing is set for September 8th, 8 to 16 years mandatory.

SPEAKER_02 35:15

To be clear, we have not found evidence that Woods altered the Ramsey evidence itself. The connection is that she worked on the original 1996 forensic team. The broader scandal raises questions about institutional trust, not a proven link to this specific case.

SPEAKER_00 35:34

Wild.

SPEAKER_01 35:36

This has been going on since we were kids. That's what's crazy.

SPEAKER_02 35:48

So I'm gonna go ahead and put this out there. Why a scandal like this matters even when it doesn't touch your specific case? What does it do to public trust in forensic labs generally?

SPEAKER_01 36:00

Her misconduct led to her being found guilty of cybercrimes, perjury, lying under oath, influencing a public servant, and forgery. She was on the forensic team in 1996 during the Jabonet Ransom.

SPEAKER_02 36:27

This is not the first case of something like this where we've kind of talked about where there's some stuff going on behind the scenes. When this comes up, it it really makes you question. I mean, again, we uh my biggest thing is scrutiny. Everything should be able to stand up against scrutiny. We've been saying that since episode one of Casewalker Chronicles, okay? Because in my opinion, if we're willing to, you know, put someone in prison for the rest of their life for this specific crime, then we should be able to say, okay, we allow the public to question every person and everything, every step of this process, because that's kind of a big deal. Yeah, like if you're literally taking someone's life away, it should be, you know, open and closed.

SPEAKER_01 37:31

It's not though, and you know that.

SPEAKER_02 37:33

I am I understand that.

SPEAKER_01 37:34

I'm just saying, like it we want it to be that right.

SPEAKER_02 37:37

But it's like well, I think again, when it c when it comes to because the question we ask, something like this happens, what does it do to public trust?

SPEAKER_00 37:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 37:46

And I think for me personally, what it does is it it's it's easy to just begin to say, okay, well, if this happened here, what else did it affect?

SPEAKER_01 37:57

The butterfly effect.

SPEAKER_02 37:59

Because it's like, okay, well, and I'm just I'm just saying general, okay? But let's say I touched 10 pieces of evidence, I have so many issues with this case, and it you know, uh it is in theory every piece of evidence I touched, so to speak, tainted. What's uh okay, do we then go back and kind of start saying, okay, well, because what was it? What was the number? Like potentially they said thousand, more than a thousand potentially impacted cases. So if we're talking between 2008 and 2023, that's a lot of pieces. Right.

SPEAKER_01 38:43

But what I'm saying is what does so, so you do you go back and you would hope that they're not having misconduct with everything that they said.

SPEAKER_02 38:52

You know, when we started talking about in our last case, uh, you know, when we were comparing like Marley Kinney and Nolan Wells's um toxicology, you know, those reports, it makes sense now why we have backlog of cases and why things take so long to process. Because if we have already opened and closed a case and then something like this happens, and we start going back and reopening, or not reopening, but re taking a finer tooth comb over some of these older cases, there's no wonder nothing ever really, because it's just like, and I think, and I will say this, and I'm not trying to be mean, and I'm not trying to do anything. I'm not, I'm not putting down any profession, but it's like the majority of people go to work Monday through Friday or whatever your set time of work is, your normal, your normal work. There are, we've talked about this, Nick and I have talked about this in a cut in a couple of other cases and in regard to professions where people kind of get in that, and this is gonna sound bad, but when I was when I was going to work, it was just like there wasn't really anybody's life on the line. So it was, you could kind of just go through the motions, go with the flow, kind of, you know what I mean? Like you go in, you clock in, you do your thing, and you go home, and you don't really think about law enforcement, first responders, things like that, they don't get that, in my opinion. They don't get that luxury. I don't feel like those are the type of doctors, you don't get that luxury go in and go about you have to be a different type of person to have those. And that's why I think, you know, when it comes to these people, like, and I'm I'm not trying to be mean in any way, but like you think about a lab, somebody that's just processing evidence, they're just running this report. Is that because it becomes such like a mundane task? Well, pick this up and put it in here and run this test. And you're so far disconnected from the actual case itself.

SPEAKER_01 40:53

Unfortunately, you can equate that to the people at McDonald's that can't flip a burger.

SPEAKER_02 40:58

I don't think that's the case. I don't because I think I mean I don't know anybody that personally works in a lab, but I'm just thinking in my head, because you are not necessarily frontline, do you become, so to speak, disconnected where it's just your day-to-day and it's easy to just, but then again, I think in my head, if it's a pattern, like I do think so. I I mean, everybody, I think everybody, I think everybody's got this, okay?

SPEAKER_01 41:28

Maybe I'm just got I want to know about what this is. John Ramsey has renewed his push for outside genetic genealogy testing confirmed directly. He told Fox News on July 12th, he wants an independent private lab, not CBI, to run forensic genetic genealogy on the case's existing DNA profile.

SPEAKER_02 41:51

Is that he has not had the most faith in CBI.

SPEAKER_00 41:58

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 41:59

So every time there's another anniversary that comes along or something like that, you know, and he does um interviews with people, he has continued to push for private companies to to do investigations, to do research.

SPEAKER_01 42:16

Her undergarments that she was wearing, and because there was an unknown DNA profile, I remember now. Holy crap. I don't know why. My brain just completely How do you not see what I mean?

SPEAKER_02 42:28

There's so much in here that I can't pull. Right. Like the case novel.

SPEAKER_01 42:32

You just reminded me. I remember now that they looked into the manufacture of the undergarments, of her undergarments.

SPEAKER_02 42:41

I'm glad you said undergarments. I was gonna say underwear because I don't like the word pants.

SPEAKER_01 42:45

I remember this now. It was a huge deal.

SPEAKER_02 42:47

Um that's why I was confused.

SPEAKER_01 42:52

I was like, what is he wanting? Genetic genealogy.

SPEAKER_02 42:55

I guess I'm gonna have to start putting like side notes in for you so you know what's going on.

SPEAKER_01 42:59

Seriously, uh, I need uh I need footnotes or something, but yeah, now I remember uh they talked a lot about they were wanting to look into that because they were wanting to look into every little possible forensic analysis they could. Because it's still it still never really evolved to anything, and I don't know that viewers really know that because that's not a detail that really was really publicized because it was a honestly, it was a a string or a straw that they were drawing at.

SPEAKER_02 43:33

So when it when it comes to so many years after a case, I mean we talked about this and I don't remember the I don't remember which episode, but we talked about memory and we talked about something. So one's gone. When we it's uh prime example. Um when we talk about things uh at this point, and I don't remember what was this? What did I say? This 96 is when this happened. Like how many was 20 years? 30, 30. Obviously, I'm not a math person, but 30 years, I don't he doesn't remember what we did yesterday.

SPEAKER_01 44:04

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 44:04

So he's not gonna remember.

SPEAKER_01 44:07

I don't sleep much.

SPEAKER_02 44:08

You know, and and that's the kind of thing that we talked about. It's it's the same type of thing. Other otherwise, I mean, my personal opinion on this case, the investigation, and I mean like the findings, like, you know, well, let's just invite all of our family over to the crime scene. Come on over!

SPEAKER_01 44:24

Stop, stop, stop.

SPEAKER_02 44:25

I'm just saying you because I don't have a calculator. Exactly.

SPEAKER_01 44:29

Don't say that because coming from an investigator's standpoint who's been to crime scenes, active crime scenes, it's chaotic.

SPEAKER_02 44:39

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 44:40

It is, I'm sorry.

SPEAKER_02 44:41

So as an investigator, are you gonna I'm just gonna stop.

SPEAKER_01 44:44

No, I'm gonna stop because I have been to a murder crime scene.

SPEAKER_02 44:50

But I think there is a standard knowledge, there's a standard operation.

SPEAKER_01 44:54

What people think happens. Yes.

SPEAKER_02 44:57

Well, I don't think that you're there p picking people up, moving them around.

SPEAKER_01 45:01

Understand that investigators weren't there initially before they were moved.

SPEAKER_02 45:08

The first time.

SPEAKER_01 45:10

Right.

SPEAKER_02 45:11

I'm talking about the second time.

SPEAKER_01 45:13

Yes. Yes, they were there. He shouldn't have done that. Well, the John moved her first.

SPEAKER_02 45:20

I get that. I get I fully understand because if I find my child, I'm well, I mean, uh again, I'm not gonna go down that rabble. No, we're not gonna talk about the case a lot.

SPEAKER_01 45:30

Some of the evidence.

SPEAKER_02 45:31

People are probably gonna come after me for everything that I say, and that's okay. Sorry. What are you doing?

SPEAKER_01 45:36

This segment is evidence of the night.

SPEAKER_02 45:39

And again, that's a perfect thing.

SPEAKER_01 45:42

We're going back to what this segment is, not the case.

SPEAKER_02 45:46

So but again, in reference to this, how in the world is any of the evidence technically relevant, and how can we even trust any of the evidence when it's a hot mess?

SPEAKER_01 45:57

Well, that and how can you trust it if they are you have a forensic analyst who's been found guilty of all these things who worked on it.

SPEAKER_02 46:06

In all honesty, at this point, an analyst is different than like a crime scene investigator.

SPEAKER_01 46:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 46:14

So if you have like a if you have like a crime scene tech and you have an analyst, they can, yes, uh, you and you can, you know, you can move around within. So say you worked for this company for 20 years. You may have started out as this, and then you moved to that, and then you move blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You've moved all these different jobs. But in theory, when I think analysts, I think of like myself, where I am analyzing and I I look at things differently because it's from an analytical standpoint. So in my head, when I see this and it says an analyst, if you're just analyzing, say, for instance, the report, that's different than like, oh, she was the tech that collector.

SPEAKER_01 46:52

Even still, they're they are they're automatically held to a higher standard. I when the outlets disagree, so your red How to read the story yourself.

SPEAKER_02 47:04

This is gonna be so if you remember way back when the Case Walker Chronicles started, um, our our preview or our premiere was that we did a red flag. We did a different red flag, and people loved the red flags. So we are bringing back the red flag series, and we are doing it particular style. So at the end of every live episode, we will give you a red flag, and tonight's red flag is The Disagreement.

SPEAKER_01 47:34

The Marley Kinney case. One outlet named her sister as the GoFundMe organizer using one name. Her own obituary lists a different sister's name. Two sources, two different facts, no way for us to independently independently confirm which is right. We're not naming either on air until it's resolved.

SPEAKER_02 48:01

There is also a second layer to tonight's red flag, and it's a different problem worth knowing about. So Newport, Kentucky ended its flop camera pilot program on July 14th, a story we first covered all the way back on episode one. The city's own official announcement, the actual press statement, quoted word for word by multiple outlets, never states how many cameras were involved. You only get a number if you go find separate town hall coverage, which consistently seven says 17 cameras were piloted, narrowed down to six. So your red flag tonight is if you are seeing multiple stories where the details are different, or say, for instance, numbers are different, that would be a red flag, and you should probably do some extra research on the topic.

SPEAKER_01 48:57

Kitty is the clean example of tonight's headline. Two outlets, two different facts, genuinely unresolved.

SPEAKER_02 49:05

And what was so my thing for that, I was going to there is um a GoFundMe for that case, and I was going to discuss it, but then I when I pulled the obituary, I was like, wait a minute. These don't match. I'm not saying that anyone's wrong. I'm not saying that she couldn't have multiple siblings or anything like that. What I'm just saying is I looked at that and I was like, wait, these names are not the same thing. I was just like, okay, I'm just not gonna say it because I didn't want to send people to something that Yeah, no, so and that happens that was just a a a quick example, which sounds bad, but there's a lot of things out there where you could kind of go around in circles because the information's not always the same.

SPEAKER_01 49:54

So talk to them.

SPEAKER_02 49:57

Are you going away?

SPEAKER_01 49:59

Legitimately outing.

SPEAKER_02 50:01

I hear her whining. I know I I I just I really wanted to share the information, and then I was like, wait, this doesn't and again, I I'm not saying that it was anything nefarious, anything like that. I I'm just saying that's a red flag. That's one of the things that I look for when information or numbers or names don't line up. And you know, we've talked about that before. Prime example is when we're doing like a records search and we're looking at like a case, like a docket. I'm looking for somebody's case. Uh, and say, for instance, their names, there's you know, I'm just gonna say it, say it's John Smith. That's a very fairly common name. You look at it, and there's like 50 John Smiths. So you need some other identifiers to narrow it down. Yeah. So that's why I tell people don't always just take what you see and run with it. Try to cooperate the evidence across multiple soices. Okay. So now you can uh go back in there.

SPEAKER_01 51:07

So I was gonna say the whole point of this segment and honestly of the show is we're not telling you what's true, we're showing you how we figured out what's contested versus what's confirmed. So you got to do the same thing.

SPEAKER_02 51:24

And a lot of times, um, for me personally, when I'm going through stuff and I find stuff that doesn't match, um, if I kind of go, and and it's an endless loop sometimes because it's like, okay, well, you go to this news reporting and that news reporting, and you try to find the press release, and you try to go to the like the actual like you can find press releases, but they're not always linked to the actual so say it's a police department, they might not have anything on their website, and it's like, well, is this a legitimate press release from this specific organization when it's not even on their website?

SPEAKER_01 51:57

There's so much I'm not gonna say misinformation out there, it is it looks like reliable information, but it it can't be verified. So against our standards, I think.

SPEAKER_02 52:12

Because like that's for me, like I'm not next thing you know, I'll have 50 tabs open because I've gone through all these places trying to click, and then I don't even remember what I got got down some rabbit hole and don't even remember what I was trying to verify. And I'm just like, well, we're not gonna include that in tonight's segment because I got 10 sources here and they all say something different.

SPEAKER_01 52:29

I will I will say that's what makes it very difficult to do what we're trying to do, and that is to be able to provide information that is hopefully relevant and to the best of our sources and reporting accurate. That's now yes, this the particulars, especially we give some of our opinions and our analysis of different things, but we tell you what those things are and we let you know that okay, this is what we believe. Yeah, but uh one of the things that makes it very difficult is having the right information and wanting to present the right information because there's a lot of stuff that we don't talk about because we don't have all the facts, and we don't want to make our add to the noise, right? And we don't want to make our educated opinion on misinformation because then it's just pointless, which is what a lot of a lot of people do out there is they add their spin on information that they got from the telephone game. So that's all ultimately what it comes down to um with the red flag segment is we want to see those things that, hey, this stuff is getting put out there, but maybe you want to take a look at it a little bit more. So those are the two things tonight.

SPEAKER_02 53:58

Did either of the places that you're looking, say you have two different, two different um sources of information? Do either one of them cite a primary document or a named official? Um see if a third outlet breaks the tie. So if I've got A, B, if I look up C, do they can they cooperate either one of those? Right. So then hold it loosely. And then, like, if there's an omission, what I like to say is I'm like, okay, well, why would we omit that information? And so, say, for instance, it's a press release and they're omitting something, they probably don't want that information out, or they don't have the information at hand, or a reliable source, or it could be a lot of it. So put a little bit of thought into that part of it because and for me, what I say 20,000 likes. Yay! Thank you. What I like to say when it comes to sources is I like to say the ones that are reputable. And what is a reputable source? I say so, like we're talking about legal. I use a lot of Lexus, Nexus, uh, Westlaw, um just case law in general. Case law, yeah. And I will go to the state. So I look at the state website, or uh, if we're talking about like oh, that was scary.

SPEAKER_03 55:21

Come here, lay down.

SPEAKER_02 55:22

Um, she like wove around behind the camera and I was like, don't pull the cord. But so I look at stuff like that. Um and I try to, if I'm gonna try to report, so to speak, on something, I try to go with like law enforcement's direct. So if we're talking FBI, I go to their website, try to pull it. If it's not there, or again, you know, the old docket system. I love the docket system. I have a lot of bookmarks.

SPEAKER_01 55:50

So tonight we kind of changed it up a little bit, and this is what we we will be continuing moving forward. We had four segments tonight.

SPEAKER_02 56:01

And each segment had a different takeaway.

SPEAKER_03 56:04

Yes.

SPEAKER_02 56:05

And what I am trying to get you, we are trying to get you, we're not just telling you what's true, because quite honestly, in the scheme of things, do any of us really know what's true? What we're trying to get you to see is we're showing you how to figure out what's contested versus confirmed. So you can do the same thing next time you're reading a headline on your own, because so much of what people do is they take what they see and they run with it. And it is, in fact, the telephone game. So think with a little bit deeper train of thought, I like to say. So I think there's like contact us forms on pretty much everything. Yeah. Send us whatever. Well, not whatever. You know, within reason. And at this point, I will say that I think that episode nine is coming to a close. So I appreciate all of you for being here. All of the shares, all of the likes, we got finger hearts, we got heart me's, we got roses. We appreciate all of it. And again, we do have our merch. So if anyone is looking for a clear as mud merch t-shirt that I personally designed, I think they're fantastic. Go check out. Check out our link tree. I think all of our links and everything are in there. At this point, we're gonna try to give you back a little bit of your Friday night. So, headlines end, the details begin. We'll see you Monday. Follow, share. I lost my spot.

SPEAKER_01 58:04

And find everything else.

SPEAKER_02 58:06

Schedule, merch, coffee at our link tree.

SPEAKER_01 58:09

Our opinion, our analysis, not legal advice.

SPEAKER_02 58:12

Thanks for walking the cases with us. We'll see you Monday night, 9 p.m. for the particulars.